Issue of Signing RFA's

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

I wanted to post this thread so that we could attempt to resolve possible issues concerning the Rules regarding the signing of RFA's. First and foremost, those who have been here any length of time know that I am a stickler for following the Rules, even where they may go against what I feel. Secondly, I am also aware of the fact that everyone is not so much for following the Rules, but would much rather have things a certain way. That said, the issue, although two-fold, imo, will be addressed one at a time.

Number One:

Under our Rules:

1) UDFA's go into the FA pool;
2) they (UDFA's) can be signed as a standard FA for up to four years; or
3) signed as an RFA.

RFA status is given to those players IF their last year under contract is their 3rd year or less. IF the last year of the contract you are attempting to sign is the 4th year, it does not qualify for RFA status, but as a standard FA.

If we need to change the language for a better understanding, I would like to get that resolved as to eliminate any possible confusion.

Are the Rules clear regarding the signing of RFA's? Or No?

[Chiefs GM (Anthony)]

Can you just change the Rfa rule to
Anyone who has been in the league for 3 years or less can receive a RFA tag for up to 3seasons. It’s very similar to how you worded it above

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Jul 22, 2018 3:02:26 GMT Chiefs GM (Anthony) said:

Can you just change the Rfa rule to
Anyone who has been in the league for 3 years or less can receive a RFA tag for up to 3seasons. It’s very similar to how you worded it above

Thanks for your input Anthony. The purpose of this thread is not to make things more complicated than they are, but to simplify, if needed, the rule surrounding the signing of RFA's. Although I think the Rule is self-explanatory, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone believes it to be so. The language in our Rules are similar to those in RL;

(A restricted free agent is any player with an expiring contract who has exactly three accrued NFL seasons),

however it appears from discussion, and I hope I'm not missing the argument being made, is that the deviation in our Rules, specifically, allowing Un-drafted Rookies to enter into the FA pool, make it appear as though the rules governing RFA contract limits no longer apply (after all, the player is no longer an UDFA, but a FA - thus equating to no rules governing UDFA).

Thus language may be needed to carryout the rule's intent: "linking UDFA to FA" (ex; UDFA players added to FA are for bidding purposes only), along with your suggestion, and with Kevin's suggestion added as an example may work;

Ex;
First year in NFL - up to 3 years RFA contract

2nd year in the NFL - up to 2 years RFA contract

3rd year in the NFL - 1 year RFA contract

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Now that we are addressing the language issue to ensure the bidding and signing of players to an RFA contract is within limits and scope of the Rule, I'd like to address the second part.

Number Two:

Last year we encountered a conflicting conclusion among Admin under our Rules regarding the mandatory signing of players to an RFA contract where they qualified. Unlike other leagues where the RFA distinction must be offered with the contract, Dynasty does not have that rule, and neither do our Rules allude to such.

Specifically, since I could not find supporting language mandating the making of such a notation with the bid (in fact our rules state that an RFA contract will be given regardless), I ruled that such notation in the thread was only to let Admin know the player qualified, yet was not required.

Later in the year, qualified players were not being signed to an RFA contract because the distinction was not included with the winning bid. This conflict in understanding led to a meeting that decided that all bids must now contain the RFA in the bid to qualify. Thus the Rules must also be updated to reflect this change.

This year the bids all conformed to the unwritten rule, so we are without issue there.

However, as we look toward updating this language and moving forward, it has occurred to me that we have left some middle ground unresolved. Some players were given RFA status last year while others weren't. To remedy this situation, any player signed last year that qualified will be given that status.

As all rosters are being updated, please list those players that qualified for RFA so that we can update them on MFL.

Thanks,

The Commissioners

[Deleted]

Shouldn't this have been done before RFA and UFA? Reading the rules any player bid on and won under 3 years should have RFA tag.

I am reading the rules right on a 1 year player that played under 3 years should have gotten a RFA tag regardless of bid. Am I missing something.

[Deleted]

Example is signing a player to 1 year deal but player in league less than 3 years. Do they get a RFA per the rules and this was not done.

[Deleted]

I guess what I am asking if a player was a rookie last year and you signed them to a 1 year deal would that player have a RFA or would it have to be a 3 year contract to get RFA tag?

The "up to" is confusing.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Jul 30, 2018 0:08:37 GMT @redzone said:

Shouldn't this have been done before RFA and UFA? Reading the rules any player bid on and won under 3 years should have RFA tag.

I am reading the rules right on a 1 year player that played under 3 years should have gotten a RFA tag regardless of bid. Am I missing something.

Bryan, this is correct - as long as the player qualifies. As an example, a player would NOT qualify if they have previously been signed an RFA tag. Yet as per your example below they would qualify.

[Deleted]

So how can you do it now when last years 1 year contracts (less than 3 years) SHOULD have gotten the RFA tag instead of UFA. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe undo those too if your going to give current players the RFA tag or just leave players the way they are. Can't middle the rule.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Jul 30, 2018 15:07:49 GMT @redzone said:

So how can you do it now when last years 1 year contracts (less than 3 years) SHOULD have gotten the RFA tag instead of UFA. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe undo those too if your going to give current players the RFA tag or just leave players the way they are. Can't middle the rule.

We are attempting to remedy a situation due to a change of Rule. Sometimes, we just have to pick-up from where we are in order to move forward. I believe you are suggesting that because it was unfair that some GM's were provided RFA while others were not - that it is now fair to leave it that way (as it wouldn't seem fair to change it because players that were one year RFA eligible have been lost?

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Jul 30, 2018 15:07:49 GMT @redzone said:

So how can you do it now when last years 1 year contracts (less than 3 years) SHOULD have gotten the RFA tag instead of UFA. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe undo those too if your going to give current players the RFA tag or just leave players the way they are. Can't middle the rule.

In further response, I have not found any evidence related to your claim that a significant number of players that fall within this category were signed and lost to FA. Please provide any and all information you may have relating to your claim so that we may objectively view your claim.

[JAGUARS GM (Kevin)]

OK. Simply and technically any player signed to a contract in the NFL of three years or less accrued playing time automatically gets an RFA tag assuming it does not exceed three years, there's also exclusive rights of course but lets not muddy the waters.

Ideally that should happen here (and similar what I call Sim leagues, where the NFL is less fantasy more simulated) But that places extra burden on the admin having to check every contract once won, cross check with NFL and add the RFA where appropriate.

Burden of proof then should be on the employer (GM) in these leagues. If they want RFA they should add it to the post for ease. I'm not averse to adding it retrospectively though. Start a thread GM's can post player and add RFA to existing contracts but have to show that contract and previous years in league are compatible

As CIN posts


First year in NFL - up to 3 years RFA contract

2nd year in the NFL - up to 2 years RFA contract

3rd year in the NFL - 1 year RFA contract


up to being the key words If you want a 1 yr RFA contract for a rookie that's perfectly fine ...or 2 or obviously 3...but NOT 5

[Deleted]

I lost Ricky Seals Jones to UFA when he should have been a RFA. Now you want to change the rules after I lost my player when the RULES said he should have been a RFA. Maybe wait until season starts and it's for new UFA bids only.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2018 17:30:48 GMT JAGUARS GM (Kevin) said:

OK. Simply and technically any player signed to a contract in the NFL of three years or less accrued playing time automatically gets an RFA tag assuming it does not exceed three years, there's also exclusive rights of course but lets not muddy the waters.

Ideally that should happen here (and similar what I call Sim leagues, where the NFL is less fantasy more simulated) But that places extra burden on the admin having to check every contract once won, cross check with NFL and add the RFA where appropriate.

Burden of proof then should be on the employer (GM) in these leagues. If they want RFA they should add it to the post for ease. I'm not averse to adding it retrospectively though. Start a thread GM's can post player and add RFA to existing contracts but have to show that contract and previous years in league are compatible

As CIN posts


First year in NFL - up to 3 years RFA contract

2nd year in the NFL - up to 2 years RFA contract

3rd year in the NFL - 1 year RFA contract


up to being the key words If you want a 1 yr RFA contract for a rookie that's perfectly fine ...or 2 or obviously 3...but NOT 5

Moore, Kenny IND CB (R) (Q) 76.00 11 $230,000 2017 should have been a RFA.

[Deleted]

Everett, Deshazor WAS S 113.00 5 $900,000 2017 should have been a RFA.